WV Current Events Forum

LONDON — Albert Einstein: arch rationalist or scientist with a spiritual core?

A letter being auctioned in London this week adds more fuel to the long-simmering debate about the Nobel prize-winning physicist's religious views.

In the note, written the year before his death, Einstein dismissed the idea of God as the product of human weakness and the Bible as "pretty childish."

The letter, handwritten in German, is being sold by Bloomsbury Auctions on Thursday and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000.

Einstein, who helped unravel the mysteries of the universe with his theory of relativity, expressed complex and arguably contradictory views on faith, perceiving a universe suffused with spirituality while rejecting organized religion.

The letter up for sale, written to philosopher Eric Gutkind in January 1954, suggests his views on religion did not mellow with age.

In it, Einstein said that "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me," he added, "the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

Addressing the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people, Einstein wrote that "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Bloomsbury spokesman Richard Caton said the auction house was "100 percent certain" of the letter's authenticity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355323,00.html

SheikBen wrote:Sure, I don't begrudge him his opinion on religion. I think he's wrong, of course, but he's entitled to it.

My point is that we think Einstein's opinions are important because of his scientific brilliance, not any particular grasp of his on the supernatural or human nature. As such, while he is entitled to his opinion (and to having his papers now sold for big bucks), I see no reason why his opinion is any more informed on the matter than the opinions of the rest of us.

SheikBen wrote:Sure, I don't begrudge him his opinion on religion. I think he's wrong, of course, but he's entitled to it.

My point is that we think Einstein's opinions are important because of his scientific brilliance, not any particular grasp of his on the supernatural or human nature. As such, while he is entitled to his opinion (and to having his papers now sold for big bucks), I see no reason why his opinion is any more informed on the matter than the opinions of the rest of us.

SheikBen wrote:What exactly makes Einstein an expert on the supernatural/metaphysical? Did he base his views on his scientific knowledge, or was he rather making proclamations with the certain liberty that comes from a respected reputation and perhaps a few beers?

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Sure, I don't begrudge him his opinion on religion. I think he's wrong, of course, but he's entitled to it.

My point is that we think Einstein's opinions are important because of his scientific brilliance, not any particular grasp of his on the supernatural or human nature. As such, while he is entitled to his opinion (and to having his papers now sold for big bucks), I see no reason why his opinion is any more informed on the matter than the opinions of the rest of us.

So scientific brilliance is not relevant to having an informed opinion about the "supernatural" and "human nature"?

SamCogar wrote:

SheikBen wrote:What exactly makes Einstein an expert on the supernatural/metaphysical? Did he base his views on his scientific knowledge, or was he rather making proclamations with the certain liberty that comes from a respected reputation and perhaps a few beers?

Hey, don't be knocking the beer, it makes ya smart, ya know.

It made Bud weiser, didn't it?

SheikBen wrote:I'm not knocking the moderate enjoyment of yummy beverages. I'm not knocking scientific brilliance, either. What I am suggesting is that questions about the meaning (or lack thereof) of life, the cause (or lack thereof) of life, and the sticky matter of right and wrong, are just simply beyond the kind of knowledge that can be gained in the laboratory. Both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are required to make a "leap of faith." Both of us can fit the evidence to our models, but neither of us can ultimately demonstrate scientifically either the validity or folly of most faith systems.